Temporal Orientation and Customer Loyalty Programs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Loyalty programs play a prominent role in many firms’ customer relationship management programs, but not all programs are successful. Providers need to understand not only what benefits customers want in a program, but also how they want to be treated as a loyalty member. We posit that because loyalty programs offer rewards that are time-bound (immediate or delayed), and that loyalty programs seek to develop a relationship that extends over time, an important, but overlooked dimension for hospitality managers to consider is how their customers view time. Our research focuses on customers’ temporal orientation—the tendency to think in the present, future, or past. We use depth interviews to explore existing casino loyalty program participants’ thoughts and feelings about their ideal loyalty program. We find the customers’ temporal orientation influences the type of relationship as well as the type of benefits sought in the loyalty program. Our research offers managerially practical insights for identifying customers more likely to engage in co-production of a long-term loyalty relationship as well as for creating communication strategies that are likely to interest and provoke different temporal mindsets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it